Just For Fun

The next few days are going to be pretty frantic in the Senate. The Congressional Budget Office just released its scoring of the Republican "repeal and replace" healthcare bill, and the numbers are almost as dismal as the House version's. But will it matter? At this point, it's impossible to really predict, as the entire political world waits to see what senators like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski have to say about it.

My best guess is that one of two things will happen. Either the bill fails because at least five or six Republicans declare their opposition, or the entire thing will pass with blinding speed and be signed by Donald Trump, probably on Independence Day.

Let's take a look at the first scenario. As of this writing, five Republican senators have indicated they will not vote for the bill in its current form. Mitch McConnell has already thrown one change into the mix, penalizing people who don't buy insurance for six months, in an effort to prohibit people waiting until they get sick to buy health insurance. McConnell is likely going to be open to other minor changes to woo fence-sitting members of his own caucus.

Of the five professed "no" votes, I personally only believe one of them is solid. Or maybe one-and-a-half. McConnell can afford to lose two votes, so this means the bill might just have enough support to pass by Thursday. The solid "no" is Dean Heller, who is coincidentally the most vulnerable Republican in the entire Senate. He's up for re-election next year, his state is a purple state, and Nevada's well-liked Republican governor is strongly against the bill because he knows how many Nevadans will be thrown off the Medicaid expansion the state accepted. So Heller's stance is one designed to save his own political skin, and it's doubtful any tweak accepted by McConnell is going to be able to sway him.

The other four GOP senators against the bill are quite likely just posturing. Ted Cruz is one of them, and his love for such posturing is well-known. These four are on the Tea Party side of the Republican Party, and their complaint is that the bill is not Draconian enough. For them, 22 million people losing their insurance simply does not go far enough. But of the four, only one of them has any real record of voting his libertarian political conscience in the face of overwhelming Republican pressure: Rand Paul. And from comments he made over the weekend, even he seems to be wavering. So that's one solid and one possible "no" vote. If Paul holds firm, this means that McConnell cannot lose any other votes to pass the bill.

The pressure being brought to bear by McConnell and the rest of the party upon the fence-sitters is simple to define: "This is going to be our only shot at repealing Obamacare, so even if you don't like parts of it, we are going to paint you as a traitor to every promise Republicans have made to get elected for the past eight years if you vote against it." If McConnell only manages to get 49 votes for the bill, then what that means is that the entire well-funded weight of Republicans who sincerely want Obamacare repealed will fall upon those three senators. This will be a multimillion-dollar campaign, and all three will likely face right-wing primary challenges in their next election. They will, in a word, be demonized -- by their own party.

This is why I doubt the bill will fail with only three Republicans voting against it. I think it's much more likely it either passes or fails with more GOP defections -- perhaps as high as a dozen. In this scenario, we may not even ever know for sure how many were going to vote no, if McConnell pulls the bill from the floor at the last minute. If he knows he's going to lose big, he may spare his members from having to go on the record -- no matter what he says to the contrary, right up to the point he pulls the bill.

I say all of this because of the concept of safety in numbers. If there are more than just three defections, then any one of them can't be personally painted as "the vote which killed the bill." If it becomes obvious within their caucus that the bill is doomed, then voting against it becomes less costly, politically, for each individual senator. The hard-liners can vote no and campaign on: "It wasn't a full repeal." The compassionate senators can campaign on: "It was bad for our state." So if the bill does fail this week, I expect there to be (at the very least) four or five votes against it. We may soon see an indication of this, if the moderates begin weighing in after today's brutal C.B.O. report.

The C.B.O. report can be summed up in one word, thanks to Donald Trump: mean. This is a very mean bill. Both versions of repeal-and-replace will kick over 20 million Americans off health insurance. Tens of thousands will die prematurely, through lack of this access. This is all being done solely to provide massive tax breaks to the wealthiest of the wealthy. There's simply no way to spin this. The bill is so mean, even the Grinch would smile in approval. Poor people die so rich people can get a big tax break. What's not for Mr. Grinch to love?

But this doesn't mean the bill's chances are dead. This could be the law of the land very soon. Because if the bill does pass, it's going to sprout wings and fly so fast it'll make your head spin.

Wavering GOP senators may be talked into deluding themselves, to put it bluntly. The House Republicans had a convenient fallback position when they voted: Senate Republicans would fix any possible problems with the bill, so it was OK to go ahead and vote for it, comfortable in the knowledge that Mitch McConnell would fix everything. This is quite likely the argument that will be used behind closed doors within the Republican Senate caucus in the next two or three days: "Don't worry, the worst problems will be fixed in the conference committee with the House, after we pass this version." This ignores the fact that the House version is worse, but whatever. It may prove to be a soothing enough delusion for people like Susan Collins to get on board.

What all of this ignores is that this particular section of the Schoolhouse Rock "I'm Just A Bill" process may not actually happen. Instead, once the Senate passes their bill, Paul Ryan may just offer it up on the floor of the House, untouched. If the House votes for the exact same bill the Senate passed, then no conference committee will be necessary to hammer out the differences, because there will be no differences. McConnellcare will become Trumpcare when it gets sent to his desk and signed into law. Which could happen with blinding speed. If the Senate passes the bill on Thursday, Paul Ryan may hold the House in session until Friday (or even Saturday) to force the bill to a quick vote before they all leave for the upcoming holiday. Trump, in this particular scenario, will quite likely sign the bill on Independence Day, for the obvious symbolism. "America is now free from Obamacare," he will state, as he puts pen to paper.

The House Republicans will be motivated by the same argument used all along: "This is the only train leaving the station. This is the only bill you get to vote on to repeal Obamacare. You may not like parts of it, but if you don't vote for it, you'll have to explain to your Republican base voters why you voted against repealing Obamacare after promising you'd do precisely that for so many years." As we've already seen with the initial Ryancare House vote, this is a powerful argument within the Republican caucus.

Nobody has any idea, at this point, which of these scenarios is more likely. But out of all the possibilities, I think these are the two most probable outcomes. I say this because there is one dynamic which isn't likely to change. The more the American people find out about the Republican plans, the more they dislike them. In other words, as time goes on, public support dwindles. What this means is that a conference committee could be politically devastating for Republicans. It would take weeks (at the very least -- months is much more likely) for such a committee to come to agreement. If the conference committee didn't come up with some compromise by August, then there'd be a whole month for the implications to sink in (and, as a side result, Republican townhall meetings would become an extinct species). The only news about the bill during this time would be Republicans bickering about how mean they really want to make it. Public support -- already incredibly low -- would sink even further.

This dynamic also works against the Senate deciding not to vote this week and spend a little more time on it, which would again push the whole debate into July. Remember, the first time the House tried to pass their bill it failed. But then a few weeks later, they jammed it through. This is a possibility in the Senate, but that C.B.O. report is not going to substantially change even if the bill is tweaked here or there in an effort to corral the final votes. Tens of millions would still lose insurance. The only thing delay would accomplish would be to give Democrats and other opponents of the bill more time to make their case to the public. Since they've got a pretty strong case to make, this wouldn't really help wavering Republicans get to a "yes" vote.

This could be the week that either Obamacare dies or the Republican effort to repeal it dies, at least for the rest of this calendar year. Whichever happens, it will likely -- by design -- happen with blinding speed. Until the so-called "Republican moderates" weigh in, it's impossible to say which is more likely. But now that the C.B.O. has released its report, the meanness of the effort is part of the public record. Obamacare's fate hangs in the balance of whether a handful of Republican senators can accept tens of millions of citizens losing health insurance in order to provide an almost trillion-dollar tax cut to the wealthiest Americans. By doing so, they'll incidentally be unifying the Democratic Party and providing an unavoidable and central focus to next year's midterms. The Democratic ads will all but write themselves, now that the C.B.O. has provided the numbers to use. That clip of Trump admitting he called the House bill mean will figure prominently, as well.

CW: What all of this ignores is that this particular section of the Schoolhouse Rock "I'm Just A Bill" process may not actually happen. Instead, once the Senate passes their bill, Paul Ryan may just offer it up on the floor of the House, untouched.

I like the brutal honesty and raw politics of your analysis. It follows what happened in the House after the first version was "defeated".

I am mildly curious as to what the GOP leadership thinks it's doing in the long run - to shaft the white working class and the white suburban middle class on healthcare over the next few years seems to be a counterproductive electoral strategy for them.

But they may see things differently. They may be figuring that those classes will simply refuse to connect their poor healthcare options with the Congress and the president - or they may be calculating that their electoral hold on the House and Senate is too strong to be more than weakened, not actually lost, in the midterms - or (I really don't know) they may be figuring that other issues will be more important by 2018 and 2020 and they simply *have* to get this done and out of the way (as your piece stressed).

What if Trump decides that it would be more popular for him to refuse to sign this "mean" bill into law, making it appear like he actually cares about Americans losing their healthcare coverage? It makes for good ratings, which is what Trump lives for.

Let's face it, there is no real love between Trump and the party leaders. They kiss the ring for now, but he knows that they will turn on him the moment they believe he is no longer of use to them.

It would show that Trump is his own man: the PEOPLE'S PRESIDENT! Just think how grateful the masses would be! They would be so happy to be able to keep their healthcare coverage that they'd probably do anything for him....

Like being willing to ignore the outcome of the Investigation that the special prosecutor is conducting!?!? I mean, how can someone who is looking out for American's access to healthcare be guilty of collusion, or obstruction, or treason???

Looks like my long streak of crappy SCOTUS predictions has come to an end!! :D

I do believe I said that it's likely a 9-0 ruling in favor of the constitutionality of the travel ban and a 9-0 ruling in favor of the travel ban being within the purview of the POTUS was a distinct possibility..

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — Federal investigators are looking into the finances behind a real estate deal for a now-defunct college put together by the wife of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, and she has hired a lawyer to look after her interests, a family spokesman confirmed on Monday.
The investigation, first reported by the news website Vtdigger.com, is looking into allegations that Jane O'Meara Sanders made fraudulent claims and promises while seeking $10 million in financing for the real estate deal.

Samuel Johnson once said, “When a man knows he is to be hanged ... it concentrates his mind wonderfully.” For opponents of the Trump immigration order, minds became distinctly more concentrated around 11am this morning, when the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated much of Trump’s order in a reversal of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. While the court will hear the merits in October and could still rule against the administration, these preliminary decisions often reflect a view of underlying merits.

Have you ever found yourself in the middle of an elaborate story when, suddenly, you have no idea why you are telling someone about, say, the time that you sliced up the soles of your feet while perched atop jagged coral in Cancun? “What’s the point of all this?” you ask yourself, half aloud.

Russia!-Russia!-Russia!-gate has become just like that.For more than nine months, Democrats and their henchmen in the old-guard media have spun an elaborate tale about Donald J. Trump scheming with Vladimir Putin to steal the White House from Hillary Clinton, who supposedly was born to run America. That yarn has unraveled, as even high-profile Democrats including Senator Dianne Feinstein and Representative Maxine Waters of California concede, there is no evidence of this Ian Fleming–style grand conspiracy.

And . . . now . . . we wonder why we ever started to hear about all of this.

The hunt for reds in October has morphed into a quest for obstructed justice in June. This has become a narrative about nothing.http://tinyurl.com/y7frhhln

"It's a business, people are like the media has an ethical phssssss... All the nice cutesy little ethics that used to get talked about in journalism school you're just like, that's adorable. That's adorable. This is a business.

I just feel like {the Democrats} don't really have it but they want to keep digging. And so I think the President is probably right to say, like, look you are witch hunting me. You have no smoking gun, you have no real proof."
-CNN Producer

CW I am impressed by your analysis and agree that it is a tossup at this point, and non-passage will probably need several R's to break ranks.

It is good news that Collins has made her position clear. Our own Cory Gardner is still pretending to be on the fence. He just attended the Koch Brothers' wealthy folks party at the Broadmoor in Colorado Springs. He has long been in their pockets for fossil fuels, and he will vote for the bill, hoping that we forget his heartless act before his seat comes up for grabs in 2020. I am basing my hopes for a deciding "no" vote on Lisa Murkowski, despite the extreme rightward lean of Alaska. Just a gut feeling....

I have faith that should this bill pass not just Gardner, but the Republican Party will be rightfully branded for many years as enemies of average Americans. I despair that it may take years to repair the damage, and am incensed the Republicans are unmoved by the unnecessary loss of life passage would guarantee.

I have faith that should this bill pass not just Gardner, but the Republican Party will be rightfully branded for many years as enemies of average Americans. I despair that it may take years to repair the damage, and am incensed the Republicans are unmoved by the unnecessary loss of life passage would guarantee.

It's funny...

Many on the Right said the EXACT same thing about the Democrats and TrainWreckCare..

THREE PROMINENT CNN journalists resigned Monday night after the network was forced to retract and apologize for a story linking Trump ally Anthony Scaramucci to a Russian investment fund under Congressional investigation. That article – like so much Russia reporting from the U.S. media – was based on a single anonymous source, and now, the network cannot vouch for the accuracy of its central claims.

In announcing the resignation of the three journalists -Thomas Frank, who wrote the story; Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Eric Lichtblau, recently hired away from the New York Times; and Lex Haris, head of a new investigative unit – CNN said “standard editorial processes were not followed when the article was published.” The resignations follow CNN’s Friday night retraction of the story, in which they apologized to Scaramucci:

Several factors compound CNN’s embarrassment here. To begin with, CNN’s story was first debunked by an article in Sputnik News, which explained that the investment fund documented several “factual inaccuracies” in the report (including that the fund is not even part of the Russian bank, Vnesheconombank, that is under investigation), and by Breitbart, which cited numerous other factual inaccuracies.

And this episode follows an embarrassing correction CNN was forced to issue earlier this month when several of its highest-profile on-air personalities asserted – based on anonymous sources – that James Comey, in his Congressional testimony, was going to deny Trump’s claim that the FBI Director assured him he was not the target of any investigation.

Democrats are grappling with how to keep their progressive base happy while winning over white working-class voters who left the party in the 2016 elections.

Defections by blue-collar voters cost Democrat Hillary Clinton the states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, all of which went to President Trump. It was the first time since 1988 that a GOP presidential candidate had won Michigan or Pennsylvania, and the first time since 1984 in Wisconsin.

Some discerning Democrats are at last telling the party chiefs that the party has no message to take to the hustings next year. That may be a misreading of the stars, Nancy Pelosi’s horoscope and Chuck Schumer’s tea leaves.
The problem for the Democrats, clear to everyone with battered ears and weary eyes, is that the Democrats have too many messages, and none of them good. That’s why they’ve been skunked in a series of special elections held to fill House seats vacated by members moving on to bigger things in the Trump administration.
Some of the Democratic messages, which have been dispatched with such sound and fury are that “straight” folks and particularly straight white men, are so bad they’re not entitled to rights, civil or otherwise. Cops are all bad because they’ve set out to wipe out black folks, and therefore it’s OK to kill as many cops as possible.
Free speech is cool, and everyone should be able to say anything, anywhere, as long as it’s approved by the liberal canon, except that it’s not cool to say “liberal” anymore because somebody stunk up the word and all the liberals are now “progressives.” It’s OK to attack someone who says anything that would upset a college sophomore because sophomores deserve space where they are not likely to meet anyone with a different point of view. Isn’t that guaranteed in the Constitution?
It’s certainly in the Democratic catechism that there’s no such thing as a Muslim terrorist, and besides, radical Islamic terrorism is a myth (you could ask Hillary), and Muslims wouldn’t be terrorists if they were not oppressed by Jews and Christians in the West. You could ask Bernie Sanders, who wants to bar believing Christians from holding public office.
The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming, and it’s incumbent on every good citizen to look under the bed tonight and if they find Vladimir Putin there call the FBI and ask for Robert Mueller. Republicans are excluded from looking and reporting because they knew he was there all the time, and probably put him there.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/26/democrats-message-isnt-working-for-anyone/

retracting inaccurate stories and holding reporters accountable for their mistakes is one of the ways to tell that a news organization REAL. propaganda factories don't correct or retract their inaccuracies, because those inaccuracies were intentional to begin with. at best, propagandists will respond to proof that their stories are false by redirecting to some other story that fits their narrative.

retracting inaccurate stories and holding reporters accountable for their mistakes is one of the ways to tell that a news organization REAL. propaganda factories don't correct or retract their inaccuracies, because those inaccuracies were intentional to begin with. at best, propagandists will respond to proof that their stories are false by redirecting to some other story that fits their narrative.

True..

But when there is a PATTERN of inconsistencies and retractions over a SPECIFIC subject, then ANYTHING that said news organization spews out has to be taken with a huge grain of salt..

this "you retract stories because you don't lie well enough" argument is too ludicrous to bother responding to.

there are many reasons for high rates of retraction among legitimate news organizations, especially concerning "breaking news." most tend to stem from the motivation to "scoop" a story first, and therefore print reports from sources that have not yet been properly vetted or fact-checked.

Well, that's just someone who WANTS to believe...
Contrary to all available facts...

there are over a hundred verified facts tying members of the trump campaign to the russian government, and more are likely to surface in the investigation. a handful of retracted factual errors do not somehow render all other facts invalid or untrue; nor do they impugn the overall credibility of the news outlets that retracted their errors.

my opinion is that trying to dismiss the entire affair as a "witch hunt" or a "fraud" is much more indicative of someone who "WANTS to believe, contrary to all available facts..."

The more the right wing (and Michale) scream about the investigation, the more likely it is that there is something there.

Hilarious. And it isn't like they can claim it is unfair - after they investigated Benghazi!!! umpteem times it is impossible for them to stop one good investigation of 45 and his Russian connections ... including and especially the potential money laundering from his business deals with Putin cronies.

It remains possible that there is no underlying crime. However, the continued protestations and machinations of the administration against allowing the probe to move forward increases the appearance that there's a there there. One Trump supporter referred to it as his tendency to fight fires with gasoline.
JL

there are over a hundred verified facts tying members of the trump campaign to the russian government,

Just as their are more than 500 "facts" tying NOT-45 and her campaign to the Russian government..

Why is it that *ONLY* Trump's connections are nefarious??

my opinion is that trying to dismiss the entire affair as a "witch hunt" or a "fraud" is much more indicative of someone who "WANTS to believe, contrary to all available facts..."

You mean, like ya'all did with Benghazi and the email server???

It remains possible that there is no underlying crime. However, the continued protestations and machinations of the administration against allowing the probe to move forward increases the appearance that there's a there there.

Yea, cause that was SO dead on bawlz accurate with Benghazi and the email server, right??

Like I said...

One set of standards for the Left.. A completely different, and often diametrically opposite set of standards for the Right..

I think Heller and Collins are solid negatives with Rand Paul a near solid. The rest of them seem like they could be bought.

I'm tired of Donald Trump opening his orange blowhole and listening to lie after lie fly out of it. The talking heads in the Trump administration just lie, lie, lie. Kellyanne Conway says the bill contains no cuts to Medicaid; there are hundreds of billions of cuts to Medicaid. LIES. So they don't care about lying nor who is harmed in order to get a political win.

So being they're LIARS and will say anything, small chance of passing later with only Republican votes with the $200 billion McConnell has to work with and all the lies they don't mind telling.

Looks like my long streak of crappy SCOTUS predictions has come to an end!! :D

I do believe I said that it's likely a 9-0 ruling in favor of the constitutionality of the travel ban and a 9-0 ruling in favor of the travel ban being within the purview of the POTUS was a distinct possibility..

And here it is... A 9-0 ruling.. :D

Am I good or what!!??? :D

Since you asked, I'll answer: You're wrong. It wasn't a 9-0 ruling, and there has been no ruling on the constitutionality of the travel ban. It was a 6-3 per curiam decision that partially lifted the stay of the lower court.

The 90 days have long since ended since travel ban 1.0 and the lifting of the stay for watered down travel ban 2.0 will be over before the Court hears arguments regarding the case in October 2017 so it's possible they'll never rule on it. It's a partial win and not even close to a unanimous decision.

From a brief look at Sen. Murkowski's walking interview this afternoon, I think she is also a likely "no" unless the Medicaid and Planned Parenthood issues are resolved in a manner unacceptable to the religious right/Tea Party factions. There are many poor Alaskans who would suffer greatly under the Senate bill.

CW posited at the outset of this thread that there is strength in numbers, so I think passage after the Fourth is less likely. Constituent contact over the recess may be decisive. In Kentucky, there were "Hearings" by citizens on the bill in protest of McConnell's secrecy.

Over half of the Senators named in [48] really could not support either this or the House variant. For Cruz et.al, it was still trying a Hail Mary at the conservative holy grail - a massive de-federalization of a public-good entitlement.
Ryan took a shot, but got painted with the image of snotty conservative wonks sitting around the kegger in college imagining that world with not one thought for effects on people.

The other Senators, though, know what they're facing among the people they represent, e.g, rising problems of addiction and substance abuse in their populations. For real. There are others, and this would impact the other two classes beyond the one running in '18.

Add to that what some of their state parties and governments have invested in Medicaid expansion under current projections.

The other horn of their dilemma, of course, is if
the right loses interest and turn towards tax cuts.
No Democrats will come aboard under the banner of "repeal."

It is of Trump, with Heller, Collins and Murkowski. All no-real-choice, no-coy-bullshit, no votes. And, as evidence of how deep this went, the fourth Senator in the photo is the oldest patriot in the Republican caucus, and third in line of succession.

Some might spin that as why he had to be seated in the photo close to the President. Uh huh. Right.

Since you asked, I'll answer: You're wrong. It wasn't a 9-0 ruling, and there has been no ruling on the constitutionality of the travel ban. It was a 6-3 per curiam decision that partially lifted the stay of the lower court.

Whatever you have to tell yerself to make it thru the day.. :D

But the facts are clear..

If the SCOTUS had thought that President Trump's travel ban was unconstitutional or not within the purview of the POTUS, they would not have cancelled the stay in general..

The fact that the SCOTUS *DID* cancel the stay in general and did so unanimously, proves that the travel ban IS constitutional..

CW posited at the outset of this thread that there is strength in numbers, so I think passage after the Fourth is less likely. Constituent contact over the recess may be decisive. In Kentucky, there were "Hearings" by citizens on the bill in protest of McConnell's secrecy.

Iddn't it funny how the Left Wingery only hates "secrecy" when it's the GOP that's doing it??

No one on the Left has ANY problem with secret back-room deals when it's the Democrats that are going it..

It is of Trump, with Heller, Collins and Murkowski. All no-real-choice, no-coy-bullshit, no votes. And, as evidence of how deep this went, the fourth Senator in the photo is the oldest patriot in the Republican caucus, and third in line of succession.

I don't even have to click the link with such a thorough description on your part: It's pro tempore of the Senate... one Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). Oh, my heavens!

Some might spin that as why he had to be seated in the photo close to the President. Uh huh. Right.

I'm with the former Speaker Boehner (sp?) in thinking that the Republicans' chances of passing healthcare legislation is non-existent.

The reasons are simple. In particular, they are split ideologically on what the government's role should be in delivering adequate healthcare to all Americans. So, do too much in one direction or too much in the other and you lose support from one group or another.

Of course, this provides the Democrats - and especially Barack Obama- with an excellent opportunity to do something they have been loath to do since Obamacare went into effect. And, that is champion what's good about it, lead the way to fixing what's bad about it, and make it crystal clear to everyone that it is just one step on the pathway toward a single-payer government-run and taxpayer funded healthcare system that is the only effective way to lower costs and provide excellence in healthcare.

America has an opportunity to devise and implement the best single-payer healthcare system that the industrialized world has ever known!